Hey widewetandslippery, I'm coming to Australia soon too! Can you do me a favour and let me know where you will be in the second half of April, and that way I can ensure I don't meet you and have my holiday spoiled. Thanks!
Just an observation here -- the fact that quite a few of the people posting have been so eager to ram their opinion down someone's throat when they weren't even being remotely asked for their opinion about that subject sure says something about those people.
To confuse homeopathy (the practice of diluting a substance to essentially a zero concentration to "potentialize" it, which has no scientific basis as science stands and would require the rewriting of chemistry to be true, and for which there is no study supporting its benefits, as far as I am aware) with naturopathy (the practice of supplying nutrients to the body, increasing exercise, reducing stress, and other techniques that can in many cases be "alternatives" to drugs and surgery to improve health) is a bit disturbing. Most of the concepts of naturopathy are mainstream, in that even your traditional GP will tell you to do some exercise, stop smoking, reduce the crazy hours you are working, sleep more, cut out caffeine, and eat better. The major difference between naturopathy and "conventional medicine" is that most naturopaths have a much better knowledge of nutrition and the effects of stress than other practitioners. Whereas a nutritionist or traditional GP may tell you that taking essential fatty acids is beneficial, a naturopath is more likely to tell you it is pointless unless you are also consuming protein at the same time, which is required to emulsify the fatty acids (I hope I have that right), and they will be able to give advice on the quantities and types to take. Whereas, a traditional GP considers the effects of diet on obesity and the cardiovascular system and little else, a naturopath has thorough knowledge of, for example, how nutrients (or lack of them) affect a wide range of health issues, including mental disorders, and what the adverse affects of caffeine and other stimulants (such as those in chocolate) have on the nervous systems of many people.
Drug research, and I say this as a scientist, is semi-scientific at best, and there is little understanding of the effects of drugs on the body, brain and nervous system. It is largely a trial-and-error experiment with the human body. Trial and error will certainly have successes from time to time, but to think that there is a thorough understanding of the mechanisms involved and the full spectrum of side effects of a certain drug (and every effect of a drug is really a side effect, including its marketable purpose) is sadly incorrect. Furthermore, whether a drug reaches the pharmacy as a "Western medicine" or a "supplement" (the latter usually having a long history of human consumption) has more to do with whether the intellectual property of the product can be owned by a drug company than anything else.
So to answer your question Wetty, herbal supplements are allowed in because of the substantial scientific basis for their effectiveness. Nutrition is, after all, a pretty logical concept. |